Ordinance Committee — July 14, 2026

Good evening.

It is 7:05 PM on July 14th, 2026.

This is the Committee on Ordinances.

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

I'll ask the clerk if there is anything to be read into the record.

I do.

I have 4 letters to read into the record.

This one is from Councilor Pereira— Council President Pereira.

I am writing to inform you that I will not be able to attend Committee on Ordinances meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 at 7 PM due to a personal commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and those in attendance and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

So it's from Councillor Choquette.

I am writing to inform you that I've been unable to attend the Committee on Ordinances meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 at 7 PM due to a work commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and those in attendance and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

The third letter is from Councillor Lopes.

I'm writing this letter to inform you that I will be unable to attend the Committee on Ordinances meeting on Tuesday, July 14th 2026 at 7 PM due to a work commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues, those in attendance, and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

And the last one is from Councilor Abram.

I'm writing this letter to inform you that I'm unable to attend the Committee on Ordinances meeting on Tuesday, July 14th, 2026 at 7 PM due to a work commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and those in attendance and the public aware of the reason For my absence.

Motion to receive and place all 4 communications on file.

Excuse me.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Without objection, I'd ask the clerk to read all of the items since they're all related.

Without objection, we'll begin with the clerk reading all the items.

Item number 1 is a communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Section 2 -47, establishing of the Department of Health and Human Services.

It was referred here on June 11th, 2026.

1A is the ordinance referred here on the same day.

2 is a communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Administration, relative to Article IX, which is 9, Human Rights Commission, Article 10, uh, Council on Aging, Article 13, Commission for Citizens and Disabilities, Article 15— 16.

I'm being tested with my Roman numerals here.

Division of Community Services.

Article 20, Department of Facilities and Fleet Management.

And Article 21, Public Infrastructure Department.

Uh, 2A is the ordinance which was referred here on the same day.

3 is a communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 12, Health and Sanitation, Article 1 in General by adding Section 12-11, Oversight by the Department of Health and Human Services, to the Board of Health, referred here on June 11, 2026.

3A is the ordinance, which was referred on the same day.

4 is communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 15, License and Permits, Business Regulations, Article 1, in General, by adding Sections 15-15 and 15-16 relative to the Licensing Board.

It was referred here on June 11, 2026.

And the ordinance was referred on the same day.

Number 5, it's communication Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 18, Sections 18-9 and 18-10 relative to Parks and Recreation, referred here on June 11th, 2026.

5A is the ordinance which was referred on the same day.

Number 6, communication Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 25, Sections 25-1 and 25- 4 and 25-10 relative to veterans referred here on June 11th, 2026.

6A is the ordinance which was referred on the same day.

So 1 through 6A are now before you.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All those— anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Who would like to present on behalf of the administration or to begin on— all right, Director Sloan, the podium is yours.

Good evening.

Thank you for having me today.

Like I presented for my FY27 budget hearing, The integration of a Health and Human Services Department is exciting to me as it creates a more coordinated, efficient, and resident-centered approach to serving the community.

There are a lot of strategic advantages to putting this ordinance in place.

We have a shared scope, so health licensing, veterans, recreation, and community services all impact the well-being of our community.

By reducing barriers to health, addressing factors that impact quality of life, and/or enforcing the laws and regulations that protect the health and safety of our community.

There's also an enhanced funding eligibility.

So, HHS systems are often viewed as more competitive for funding opportunities because they demonstrate a capacity to implement comprehensive strategies as well as have a greater impact and reach different populations within the community.

Also, improved community resilience.

So by combining our resources, coordination, and access to the community, we can improve the city's ability to respond to emergencies and the shifting needs of the community.

We also position ourselves as a regional leader.

We're already doing some of this work with our grants, working regionally with other communities.

But in the inevitable public health regionalization that will occur at some point down the line, I think that being a Health and Human Services model further strengthens our leadership in that space.

Since the approval of the FY27 budget, we have been supporting the departments that fall under Health and Human Services.

Some of that support has looked like supporting finance and operations with payroll budgets and the decentralized AP preparation.

We've also provided leadership for those individuals who have lost managers or departments don't have department heads anymore.

We've done some health translation, enhanced policies, have been thinking about all of the grants that we're applying for with an HHS lens, and have also jointly applied for a grant, a federal grant with recreation around substance prevention, substance misuse prevention.

And I think that's, you know, that's really just the tip of the iceberg.

In terms of future implementation, you know, Christine and I were talking about our processes for permitting and licensing.

I think one thing that really clicked when we were having our conversation is that we can make it easier for businesses by aligning our timelines and the workflows for a restaurant getting their liquor license as well as their food permit on the same timeline, in the same workflow.

Right now they're, you know, 6 months apart in different workflows.

We also are looking at different opportunities.

Recreation has access to a lot of youth.

We have access to BSAS funding, which supports prevention efforts.

So, bringing those two together to incorporate those, you know, substance misuse prevention messaging and principles into the recreation work that's happening.

I think with community services, as well as with veterans, you know, we have a number of resources, trainings, that can support the communities that they work with, as well as our department has really worked hard over the last 3 years or so around our data collection, writing grant processes, as well as translation and communications to the community.

So those are all things that we also hope to support the departments with.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the body?

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think my feelings on this ordinance has been heard loud and clear.

I do not support it.

I believe that we did this some time ago and it did not work.

I understand what you're saying this evening and throwing in the grants that will be available and all that good stuff.

But can you tell me, well, your opinion?

I'm going to ask other department heads how they feel.

But do you believe that this works under this umbrella?

This can work?

Because I don't believe veterans and licensing has anything to do with health.

I don't think recreation has anything to do with health.

Except for providing our young people through recreation or whatever the ability to exercise, have things to do or whatever.

Can you answer that?

Yeah, I, you know, I can't speak to what happened 15-odd years ago.

My understanding of that was there were different philosophies on how city government should be set up.

However, I think that there are a lot of synergies between departments.

Can I hold you up a minute?

You answered that with— there was different philosophical reasons why we— the administration at that time did that.

Could you be a little more specific?

Yeah.

My understanding of why Health and Human Services had gotten broken up was because the mayor at the time had a different philosophy on how the city departments should be structured.

It wasn't because it wasn't working.

That is not my understanding.

That is not your understanding.

Okay.

Continue.

So to your, to your question about how the departments and health intersect, I think we you know, in my opening statement, we— all of the community, all of the departments are doing things for the well-being of the community.

Veterans are supporting benefits for qualifying veterans.

Community Services is providing, you know, face-to-face mediations.

Behavioral health services for elders, programming for elders, that all contributes to an individual's quality of life, which contributes to their health.

I think for licensing, you know, Christine is responsible for making sure that the businesses are following the regulations that are put in place.

And those regulations are put in place for the health and safety of the community.

So I think in each department, there is that link to health, whether it's, you know, traditional, like, connections to healthcare or the social determinants of health that affect— right?

If you don't have housing, that affects your health.

So, you know, they're either supporting the social determinants of health or health itself.

Do you believe this will work?

I do.

We have, we have great people who work for the city, people who really care about what they do and the services they provide.

Like I said at the budget hearing night, I'm not the expert in all of these spaces, and I'm never going to be, and I'm leaning into the expertise that exists.

Because they understand their communities.

I'm here to help them succeed, and I'm here to add to what they're doing.

I'm not here to take away from what they're doing because they're already doing really great work.

Do you believe that things will be out on time?

There should be no delays on anything, correct?

When it comes to licensing, would it I'm trying to get a picture of what this front counter looks like and the services I'm getting when I walk in the door.

Or is it going to be the same old, you know, like going to one department in this place, we apply for something and then we're told to walk away, we come back, we've got to apply for something else or whatever.

How do you see this working in that one shop, that one-stop And no delays?

Yeah.

So I think that a lot of, you know, a lot of work has been done to, you know, still provide services in person if people don't have a computer or, you know, need help filling out an application.

But I think there's been a lot of work done to digitalize what's— what we're doing and make it easier for people to apply online for permits and licenses.

I think that, like I mentioned, if we're able to think more about the workflows and the timelines of some of the permitting and licensing activities, it— we can have it all happen in the same, in the same workflow.

So they don't have to come, you know, to the health department in in the new year to get their license for their alcohol permit or license renewed, and then 6 months later have to come back to get their food permit.

So we're trying to think about those efficiencies to make it more seamless for individuals so that they don't get bounced around.

One of the things that we are going to do, because the work that Christine in particular is doing is so similar to us, is that we are going to bring her into the health department so that we can work more closely on— and we have a free office available that we can bring her in and we can work more closely on some of those permit workflow issues.

I'm not convinced, but we'll see.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes Councilor Carneiro first.

Thank you, and thank you, Director, for coming this evening.

I'm in— I guess, I guess we're old, old school and old-timers, but I'm not in agreement with the combining of these departments.

But I just want to backtrack a little bit about your— you said about streamlining the food and the liquor.

Doesn't that come under your department anyways?

Nope.

The alcohol liquor licensing is under licensing.

The food permits are under the Health Department.

Right.

But if there's any controversies and stuff, do you get to see any of this?

Just the food?

Just the food.

Just the food and the tobacco.

Correct.

We did.

One of the things that we did implement just recently is we worked with the police department and licensing and the health department on alcohol compliance, much like we do with tobacco compliance.

But ultimately, That falls under licensing and the licensing.

Any of those issues go before the licensing board.

Okay.

So I mean, we still have a licensing board because I was noticing correct.

Some of the oversight is going to go to the Board of Health.

Nope.

So the Health and Human Services will be will provide support to all of the boards, but the boards will exist.

You know, they're going to Christine's still gonna.

Help to facilitate the, the licensing board, you know, whatever support administratively she needs for that, we will help to provide.

Okay, so what is, what is the Board of Health going to be taking on?

Because we have the ordinance here, it's just Human Services that the Board of Health is going to be oversight.

So that oversight, yep, that ordinance is so the Health and Human Services Division will be supporting like the administrative pieces of our Board of Health.

So our Board of Health is still going to exist.

The licensing board is still going to exist.

The Veterans Advisory Board is still going to exist.

The Parks Board Commission is still going to exist.

And it'll just be under the umbrella of Health and Human Services.

We'll provide the administrative support where it's needed.

Right now, I'm just looking at the ordinances.

It said oversight by the Department of Health and Human Services to the Board of Health.

So I was just wondering where the breakdown was, because I know we have veteran advisory that we're— I'm sure we're keeping, license boards keeping, but we're combining all this stuff underneath your department.

So I'm just curious, where does the— where does it start?

Where does it end with the Board of Health?

Yep.

So Health and Human Services, like the Board of Health, will be under Health and Human Services, right?

And your department, Health and Human Services, taken on all this other stuff with parks and this and that.

So that's what I'm saying.

It's— we still got a park board, we still have all these boards and commissions that are sitting out there that will not be underneath the Board of Health.

They'll be this separate— they'll be this separate— correct.

They're— all of the boards and commissions aren't going to fall under the Board of Health.

They're going to fall under the umbrella of Health and Human Services.

Right, but not under the Board of Health.

We have 3 members on the board.

Correct, correct.

They will not be overseeing the veterans.

They will not be overseeing licensing.

Correct.

They will not be overseeing the other departments, the individual boards that we have now.

Correct.

But I'm seeing the way this— the oversight, it just says the Health and Human Services Department, and all these people falling under the department.

So I'm like, where does that break?

Yeah, so the health and maybe it's kind of confusing.

Yeah, Eric might be able to speak to it a little bit more.

But the Board of Health duties will remain the Board of Health duties.

They're not going to take on licensing or veterans or anything like that.

Okay.

That was just a little confusion in there.

But I'm sorry, but I don't support the combination of these.

But thank you so much.

No problem.

Anyone else from the floor?

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi.

Hi, how are you?

Good, how are you?

Good, it's nice to see you.

I just have a question, just one question, and I don't know if you know the answer, but this reorg was done to save the city money in the coming year.

And can you remind us, um, how much this is— this whole reorganization, um, is projected Yeah, so the programs that got cut and the positions and the not filling of the vacancies came in at $1 million, and then the COLAs and the corresponding COLAs and step freezes and before coming to City Council, budget reductions, um, and 5% vacancies was another $200,000.

So what's the total there?

$1.2 million.

$1.2 million.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anyone else?

Sorry, Chair, we're gonna ask Councilor Gomes on a second.

Um, In your work currently in action, it says providing leadership for employees without directors and managers.

Exactly what does that mean?

How the heck does somebody direct the licensing board, which you never dealt with, or recreation?

Who becomes the chief person under this umbrella?

Sure.

So what we meant by that is particularly in those departments where the, you know, Mary retired and there's no director of Parks, Recs and Beaches anymore.

And there's no director of Community Services anymore.

And so the people who reported directly up to Cynthia or people who lost their jobs now need people to report up to.

So You know, my team has stepped up to help support those staff so that staff feel supported.

They know, you know, how to navigate this transition, how to get whatever needs fulfilled that they have or any concerns.

And then in terms of, you know, veterans like Chris and Christine, I'm available to support them in any way that they need, as well as— So under this, this plan, they stay as the director of veterans?

Correct.

Christine stays doing licensing.

I just— I'm trying to figure out, who do I— who do these people go to?

So someone like Christine or Chris would come to me if they needed support support in the work that they were doing.

When you say support, what kind of support can be provided that their department was given that they're the professionals in, as far as I'm concerned?

What kind of support can be given to them?

Sure.

So something that I've worked a lot with our department on is bringing additional funding into the city.

So we're always looking for opportunities to apply for grants.

And, you know, now that— now I'm looking at everything with an HHS lens, right?

How could this intersect with what we're doing with the COA?

How could this intersect with what we're— you know, what Veterans is already doing?

You know, not trying to add more work to anyone, but trying to think creatively about how we bring more funding into the city.

Can I stop you right there?

You say bringing more funding to the city.

You would bring more funding to the health department.

Because the health department had those grants that you could go after.

What does this do when you go after— when the veterans go after a grant and they receive the grant, is that money going to stay with the veterans or is that money going to be spread throughout the department or whatever?

May sound like a crazy question, but I'm asking.

No, it's a good question.

It would depend on how we applied for the funding.

So just recently, like I mentioned, we applied for some SAMHSA funding, some federal funding.

Working jointly with recreation.

And so we've allocated some of that funding to go towards programming that would support the work that recreation is doing.

We allocated some of that funding to the health department for some of the work that we're doing around mental health first aid training.

So it depends how— it depends how the grant is written.

But if, you know, if I'm— we're thinking about writing a grant for veterans, it would depend on— there might be an instance where the health department doesn't really have a role, and so all of it would be going to veterans.

Or maybe we're thinking about, you know, the health department has a certain training, like we do CPR certifications.

Maybe it's that the health department is providing a service for veterans, and Chris is helping us connect to veterans.

So it depends on how we're thinking about the application, what the requirements of the grant are.

But just the nature of getting a grant doesn't mean that the health department would keep it.

It depends on how— I realize that.

But you're talking about under this umbrella, it increases the opportunity to receive granting.

You said that, not me.

Yep.

And, and I'm just trying to figure out if any department gets hurt through this.

Does your department— will your department still, as the health department, still go after the grants that are needed for the health department separately, not under this umbrella?

Yeah, we're always— we are always looking for additional funding to bring in.

I think— will you still be applying for the grants that you receive on a yearly basis, every 2 years or whatever?

Will you still be applying for those grants and will they still be going to the health department?

Well, again, is it this umbrella?

Because everything is under this umbrella.

Does that affect you in any way?

So we would still— we would still apply, like, for— do you mean like for, like, for instance, the tobacco compliance grant that we get?

We'll still apply for the tobacco compliance funding when it comes up again so that we maintain that service for the community.

Will still apply for the funding that we have.

But in the new iterations of those grants, we'll be thinking about— we'll be thinking about it more broadly.

Previously, we had just been thinking about it under the purview of the Health Department.

But now we'll be thinking about it with the purview of HHS.

Is there an opportunity to expand what we're doing or provide it to a different population within the community.

2 more questions.

Was there any discussion if this doesn't work what we're going to do?

I don't think like that, huh?

I, I am going to make it work.

The last question is, are you— how long was this worked on before putting this before us?

How long did you know about this?

You seem to be the lead liaison of this whole thing.

How long were you working on this before even the budget was presented to us?

Um, I found out about it— I don't know the exact date, but it was, uh, probably the 3rd week in April.

The 3rd week in April?

Yep.

Thank you very much.

Uh, will we be able to ask the departments, uh, a question?

Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

I'm going to leave Steph alone.

There may be other colleagues that have questions for her.

Anyone else for Director Sloan?

No, I think she just needed paperwork.

If no objections from the chair, I just wanted to expand a bit from the questions my colleague— I don't know which street you live on.

Hussey Street.

Thank you.

When he asked a very relevant question about the savings, that $1,180,535 that we're saving, that's been rounded up to $1.2 million.

I just want to put the specific number on the record.

That's largely from the 13 individuals that were laid off.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And then some programming got cut.

Yeah, programming, because I know like the Girl Design Academy, which the city would receive $75,000 from, for example, from the state, we lost that funding.

So that funding, um, the earmark from Hendricks is going to the school department to continue the— but you lost that funding for your department.

It is not within our department, correct?

Thank you.

So to piggyback on Clara Street, my colleague from Clara Street, I think the question that I also wanted to ask that I don't know if I really got an answer for is, in your opening remarks, you talked about having this structure would— I wrote here, an HHS system— HHS systems have access to better grants is what my understanding of this presentation was.

But from my understanding, it's not necessarily that you have access to better grants, you just have a better opportunity to write to these grants.

Is that correct?

So we're seeing a real movement in grant applications.

The larger reach that you have, the more competitive and the more impact you can show, the more competitive your grant is.

So in some, in some grant applications, that looks like working with other community, working with other health departments.

In some grant applications, that looks like working with community partners.

So being able to say, you know, we're going to do this training program, it's going to be communicated to veterans, to our Council on Aging, our community services, it shows that we can have a larger reach and potential impact in our community.

And what's stopping you from doing that now under the current structure?

So collaborating with interdepartmental structures that we have now?

Yep.

So I think, you know, admittedly, I think we could be doing a better job of that in general as the health department.

But we have worked with other departments.

I think now right?

We're just coming— like, we're coming at everything from sort of this HHS lens.

And anytime, you know, we should always be looking for those opportunities, but even in those opportunities, you still have to— there's still another manager that you have to connect with.

You might also have to put an MOU in place.

You might also, you you know, the priorities of each of those departments, although, right, we're trying to provide good service to the community and benefit the community, the visions might be slightly different.

So I think there's an opportunity for us to align those visions.

And it's just, you know, being part of one team as HHS and thinking about grants with sort of that lens moving forward just provides a lot of opportunity.

Okay.

Yeah.

So basically what I heard was that you can still apply for these grants as the Health Department and as Veterans Affairs, as we don't need to make any of these changes to go through the cost of making new letterhead.

Because I would love to know what the cost of that would be.

Because I assume all of the letterhead that would say— that currently says Department of Health or Department of Veterans Affairs or Department of Licensing would all have to change to say Health and Human Services.

And all the envelopes and everything like that would have to change, not to mention all of the other paperwork.

And I know that seems so insignificant, but that— there's a cost to that as well.

We haven't thought that through.

That's not a question.

I'm so sorry.

Because that question really belongs to the Chief Operating Officer.

I want to ask her that at some point.

But as the chair, it's not appropriate for me to start with that.

So I think everyone's done asking you questions at this time.

Anyone else for either Director Amaral, Director Gomes, or COO Connolly?

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Director Sloan.

Whoever wants to come up first.

Director Gomes.

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

G-Man, how are you?

Good, yourself?

Always a pleasure to see you.

Same.

Um, can you tell me how you feel?

And I would like your honest opinion.

You've always been an honest department head.

Me and you have banged heads a couple of times, but we clear it up because you're able to explain how things are done and whatever.

Will this affect the veterans in any way that you see that won't be in the positive that you— the services that have been provided?

The biggest effect, which everyone is aware of, was losing our clerk.

I can't hear you.

The biggest effect was losing our clerk in the office.

That's not easily replaced, as that person knows veterans benefits services.

She's been to a veterans conference.

She had access to the military records online.

So by her leaving, there was a big loss in that.

What are they telling— who's going to handle this paperwork now for you?

I didn't even think of this, but that's so significant within your department to have someone that does this work.

And has done this work for some time, there's no room for mistakes in your department as far as I'm concerned when it comes to a veteran.

No, you never want to make mistakes with veterans.

You know what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Whether it's paperwork, I didn't want to hear a veteran coming back saying that my paperwork wasn't right or we didn't submit it right because the right clerk wasn't taking care of this person.

How significant is that going to affect you?

We will always do the best that we do.

Nothing will ever be sent out that's wrong.

So I can guarantee you that one on that.

Your eyes will be on— your eyes— you still have the power within your department for your eyes to be on everything.

And if you don't see it right, you'll be able to address it immediately.

Yes, I have had discussions with Director Sloan and we're both on the same page of, you know, Veterans is still the Veterans Department.

We're falling under Health and Human Services.

I'm open to see how this does go forward.

Again, I was here just after they had switched over and took in veterans, taken veterans out of Health and Human Services.

So all I've really known is to be our own separate department for a while.

So I'm open to see what the next steps are.

But as, as long as we continue to serve the veterans, that's the job of our department.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Director Gomes?

All right, seeing none, thank you, Director Gomes.

Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening.

Christine, this question is the same.

Um, the licensing board has its own system I've watched that system for a couple of 3 decades, and I'm not ashamed to say it, and it's always worked the way it has.

Do you believe that this can work under the structure that it's coming under?

And you can answer me honestly.

No, I'll answer you honestly.

I do believe it can work.

I think it's going to work great.

I look forward to starting the process of moving my office over to the HHS facility.

I look forward to working with the group of people that they have there working currently with the Health Department.

They've been very helpful for me in doing licensing.

I've reached out many times and they've always been there to help answer questions, concerns.

Okay, so you don't have any problem?

You have no concerns with this right now, and you're willing to put your right foot forward to make this work?

Under, um, what I believe is that this is about the people, this is about the services that you, you run.

You have a, a very hard job.

Licenses in, in the city is not easy.

Um, it has to be another department that has to be accurate, on time, working with the businesses, especially when it comes to the liquor and everything.

I just want to make sure that you're feeling very comfortable and you believe that this can work.

I am.

Absolutely.

Thank you for your honesty.

Sure.

Anyone else for Director Amaral?

I just have one question.

Sure.

How long was your clerk with you in your department, or I guess before you became the head of licensing.

I'm sorry, how long was Rena here?

Yes, I believe 38 and a half years.

38.

Okay, we'll round it up to 39 years.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

And so now essentially licensing is just you at this point?

Yes.

And the board, obviously.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Anyone else for Director Emeril?

Thank you.

Okay, good evening, Councillor Gomes.

Christine, good evening.

Good evening.

Thanks for being here.

Sure.

Um, this structure is— I'm— I haven't had the opportunity to talk to you, but, um, I've seen this before and I, I've seen it not work, and I, I just, uh I don't want to disrupt the services that are rendered from each and every department that come under there.

I think they're vital and very important to the people of this city, and we shouldn't be— I'm not going to say that— messing with them, because we're not messing with them.

You're trying to combine something.

Do you have complete confidence that this can work under this umbrella that has been established?

And this comes in April, and I'm trying to go back in a timeline of You're talking about this in April.

No one has said anything about the budget quite yet.

I'm just kind of— I don't want to call it suspicious, but it's almost like there was workings already before we were even talking about layoffs or we were talking about monies.

Maybe I could be wrong.

Time passes very quickly, but we're talking about April, I was told tonight.

Came May, June, halfway through July.

That's 2 months.

Yeah, so it came about as a result of analyzing the budget and needing to submit to this body a balanced budget, and that required, as everybody is well aware, $32 million of binding— $32 million roughly of savings.

So we had to turn over every rock and to try to find that find that savings.

And so this consolidation was a way, as we've pointed out, $1.18+ million is, um, we were able to save that through this consolidation.

And granted, that is mostly through the elimination of positions, either vacant positions, retirements, or in some cases layoffs.

And that this would not have been the way we would want to do this consolidation, But frankly, I've had this thought for years that this— because it is a common model and it works at various levels of government and it works at other local governments.

I don't mean to stop you.

It's just because you pointed out something.

It's a common model.

Common model where?

Well, it's what the federal government has.

It's what the state government has.

And then Director Sloan is probably in a better position to tell you where else.

You know, our peer cities, what their models are.

But I believe it's pretty common in our peer cities, both in the Commonwealth and outside in other states.

It's a common model.

So I've thought that for years that it might be a good thing for us to do at some point.

We— again, this would not have been our preferred way to do it, to have to lay off people.

And eliminate positions.

Um, that we didn't— certainly wouldn't— weren't doing that gleefully or with relish.

We, um, we took that very seriously and took it very hard that this is what we had to do, um, to present a balanced budget to this body.

So it's again one of the things that we did among many.

Um, but I don't I'm optimistic about the model.

And again, it would have been something I, you know, I've talked to Stephanie and I've talked to other, you know, colleagues in the mayor's office about this model, you know, over time.

So this is coming out of the chief of staff's thoughts or whatever as you do your daily work.

I keep hearing you say, I had this thought, I had this thought.

No, it wasn't Like the mayor had this.

No, I mean, it was a, it was a model I've— because I've, you know, I've observed that it exists in other, in other cities and seems to work.

And as Stephanie pointed out, all the synergies and efficiencies.

And I've over the years basically said maybe, maybe we should consider doing this at some point, kind of in that way.

And then this sort of, this circumstance of this budget year kind of forced our hand a bit.

While I have you standing there, if I could ask you a question, maybe you'll be able to answer it or not.

When did you know that we were in trouble as far as finances were concerned?

When did your— the mayor's office, I'll ask, know that we were in trouble?

Because, you know, just 2 weeks before that, we're proposing a $100 million police station.

We're continuing to do some other things that we're doing.

And there's no whisper of this unless the whisper was among certain people.

People or whatever.

Um, when did, when did you find out?

You know, sometime— and so sometime around just before the mayor's, um, State of the City address.

If you recall, in the State of the City address, he mentioned an $18 million gap at that time.

So that was the— probably just prior to that, so in March sometime, um, while— as we were— as, as the CFO's office was really poring over the budget submittals from all of our departments.

The budgets are due, you know, the departmental budgets are due in February, and then it takes quite a few, you know, it takes several weeks for the CFO's office to sort of compile all that information and analyze it.

And so it was probably sometime in late March where we got an inkling that we had, you know, we had a significant problem And then, and then, um, it proceeded from there.

So you're telling me this problem kind of originated as you were doing the budget because you had department heads walking into your office submitting their budgets with no idea that this was coming?

Um, it, again, it took, it took until like we got, we had all the budget information from the various departments together and had the time to analyze it, the CFO's office, where we discovered what our gap was.

Last question.

If this is not to work or we see gaps in this situation, this model, um, that seems— you're telling me that's on the federal level.

I'd like to know what towns and cities are doing that in Commonwealth.

We can probably get you that, right, Stephanie?

Yeah.

And as close to this model as this.

Sure.

Nothing.

Um, if you— if, uh, has there been consideration if this model affects the services in any way to the people of this city how you would recorrect this.

Yeah, we, we should always have Plan A, Plan B.

We should.

Yeah, I, I agree.

So for example, if we discover that a particular division under this consolidated model is, is lacking, like, um, you know, lacking a point person, let's, for lack of a better word, a person who really owns the you know, the mission and purview of that department, of that division, then that would be an example of something.

Well, we're seeing there's a lack there.

So we would think, all right, maybe this— maybe we need to add back a position.

Of course, that would be difficult in this budget environment.

That's how I see we might make adjustments.

I wouldn't— I don't think there's going to be a reason to pull it apart.

And, and may do it, you know, do, do it separately again.

But there may be gaps that we discover because of the reduction in positions that we, you know, that we had to do.

And we may discover that those, those aren't as tenable as we thought they would be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

And I just want to acknowledge that Director Sloan did provide us a one-sheet that, uh, one of our clerks did print out.

We should receive it, place that on file.

Uh, motion receiving, place on file, made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All the— oh, sorry.

All those of you say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Sorry.

So yeah, just to clear, uh, there were, uh, uh, city The city's coalitions are Brockton, Worcester, Lowell, Newton, Somerville, Springfield, and Fall River that's listed here.

So thank you to Director Sloan for putting this fact sheet together for us.

And you have a copy of that too.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I didn't get— I didn't read that part.

This was handed to us.

No, we just got it printed.

I know, because our clerk doesn't even have a copy of it, but we'll get him a copy.

And if anyone else doesn't have a copy of it, we'll make sure you get one for you.

With that, Councilor Roy on his first.

Thank you.

Hi, Christine.

How are you?

Hi, Councilor Roy.

I'm well, thank you.

Great.

Thanks.

I'm curious.

You mentioned something about, about, you know, if we find we need to add employees, you know, to this type of arrangement, we might be able to do that.

Does this type of arrangement lend itself to, say, returning like all of the employees we, we let go during this cycle?

Like, is this type of arrangement like the type of arrangement where, where we could have, you know, the type of, the type of, you know, personnel to serve the city the way we've been having it?

Yeah.

You know, recently, I mean, if resources allowed and we wanted to add back some of the— also some of the work areas that we, that we have eliminated from the, um, say, for example, the Community Services Division.

Um, if we, you know, speaking of gaps, if we said, well, yeah, there really is this gap where we're seeing a need that is not being fulfilled in the city because of this person or this function missing from the HHS model and funding being, you know, funding allowed, either general, you know, city general funds, or perhaps it's a grant.

You can go for grants that pay for positions for specific kinds of activities.

So maybe we'd go at it that way.

But it would just be dependent on— but if, you know, if we saw a really critical need not being met.

I don't foresee that happening with this, with this model, because really of the very strong team we have across the board in the division, in the divisions, all, you know, all of the divisions involved in this, in this new consolidated department.

I don't foresee that happening because I, I know how these, I know how these folks work and how they are how dedicated they are and how hardworking they are, so I don't foresee that happening.

But if we did, and like Stephanie said, there are also new things we might discover we want to do as an HHS department, and that might require more people, and that might mean a grant that's specific to that activity, whatever it is, that would come with a position.

Okay, so the answer was The answer was no, right?

Like this, I don't foresee us putting it all back together again and, and, and kind of adding back every position.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anyone else on the floor for— Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Christina.

Sure.

For being here.

Uh, so March, we're getting ready for the State of the City.

April 8th is the State of the City.

And then the administration, the mayor's office starts taking meetings April 22nd, 23rd, 24th.

Spoke with a couple of colleagues that have taken those meetings.

I was not one of the, the councilors that took the meetings, mainly because of reasons like this.

Why wasn't this discussed then?

Why wasn't the HHS consolidation idea discussed?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, we, we weren't certain about it, to be frank.

We, we— there was still a lot, there was still a lot of moving parts in the development of the budget and in the quest for finding the $32-odd million of, um, of savings and revenue to fill, you know, to be able to present a balanced budget.

So it wasn't— we didn't feel like it was like quite ready to discuss outside because— and when we met with, I think, when in both cases, the 2 or 3 meetings we had with counselors, we had not yet discussed it with all of the departments involved.

We— I believe I had discussed it with Director Sloan because she was going to be the you know, she was going to be the theoretical new department head.

But we had not— because we had not made any decisions, any final decisions, we had not yet, um, started talking to the other implicated departments yet.

So we didn't think it was appropriate to discuss it with the counselors at that point.

Okay.

All right, that's all.

I just wanted to kind of get that out there and see where— it's a good question— the administration was thinking at that point.

Point because, yeah, it's just, you know, kind of proves that sometimes those meetings aren't the best when we don't have all the facts.

Because if they took those meetings and we didn't get this information until later on, although I'm sure some productive conversations were had, this, this is a big one.

And I know that it was kind of— it really was not finalized yet.

And as I said, I think the most important thing is that we had not yet discussed it with most of the implicated department heads.

And as a— as the legislative body who would oversee the change of this, did it— wasn't the thought process of the administration to at least have those conversations with the council, or they just didn't think that the council should be privy to it yet?

Um, I don't know if it's not.

I mean, it's, it's sort of the typical way we present, you know, that we do our budget presentation.

And so yes, it was a bigger than normal or a more, um, significant and impactful than normal change to the budget that we made.

Um, but it was part of that process of budget development, which always You know, which is always the, you know, it's submitted, the mayor makes his presentation, and then the body deliberates for those, you know, for those weeks where it is able to ask the questions and kick the tires.

So we, I guess we just thought this is that vetting and that those conversations will happen in that context.

Okay.

So no.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anyone else for Chief Connolly?

All right, you feel allowed from the chair.

My favorite line of the night is, it seems to work.

And that is why I think we need to take a pause.

I know, to steal my colleague from Jenny Lynn's line.

Is that a quote from me?

Yes.

Okay.

I mean, it's It's kind of a loop.

It works in other cities, certainly.

And I think to my colleague from Clara Street, I shouldn't have said seems.

I should have been— no, listen, I think it's the realest thing that you've said all night because it's one of those situations where we don't have enough data on it.

We don't know if it will work in New Bedford yet because we haven't seen it actually play out.

And that's why I feel as though if we are going to go down this route, how will it affect the employees?

How will it affect the actual business or government?

My confusion, I guess, of it all is the only real employees that don't have a director anymore are community service and parks and recreation and beaches.

And so they don't have a direct report.

But I just don't see the need to change all of these systems when we don't really know what we're doing.

If we had a particular model, let's say Fall River's or Springfield's, that we could point you to say, yes, we want to model this.

And even my colleague from Hussey Street, you know, pointed out, well, you might realize, you know, halfway through the fiscal year that, oh, in order for this to work out, we need to hire this person to strengthen this area.

That's what I you know, believe we need more time to see how it will actually work out.

Because to your own admission, this was kind of just, oh, we need to save some money here.

Let's consolidate these departments and do Health and Human Services.

It wasn't— I think I would appreciate it more if it was an actual management decision of, hey, let's consolidate and make a smaller government.

But you've already reduced everywhere else.

When we're looking at public safety, there was 51 reductions between police and fire, but we're not making any huge structural changes there.

So I just don't see the need to, especially with a department like Community Services.

I'm really worried because of how instrumental they were to the community, hence the name Community Services.

And so I don't see why now the city council should go through this work of changing all these things when the administration, as always, never clues us in, never works with us, never collaborates with us, but then last minute says, you got to do this, just do it.

No.

So it would be my intention, I hope my colleagues agree, that we wait, see how this plays out, try to support the remaining department heads that are here.

And I guess That's the one question I'll ask of you is, are they even department heads in this model?

Director Amaral and Director Gomes?

No, they're not.

So what would happen?

In this model, they wouldn't be department heads.

They would be division leaders.

And what would happen to their titles then in that case?

I think for the incumbent employees, I wouldn't change.

I don't think it's necessary to change titles.

Lots of city employees have like a title that's in the Code of Ordinances in the, in the chart and have a different working title.

So that would be the case with, with Director Gomes.

And Christine's title is already executive aide to the licensing board.

So it's not— it isn't now a department head title.

Yes, I know this administration loves just slapping titles on, similar to our chief operating officer or chief of staff position, but I would feel more comfortable waiting this out, seeing how we can support parks and recreation community service staff who I feel already don't know what's going on for them.

They don't know who they're reporting to.

We can figure that out, but until we actually know How are we supporting these, not just the staff, but the actual community that are coming into City Hall and trying to utilize these services?

Why would we go through the process of making these extreme changes not only to our city ordinances, but again to the paperwork, the letterheads, the envelopes and all that just to find out, oh, actually this doesn't work and then to change it back?

That's my only feel of this.

That's course your prerogative.

Anyone else for Chief Connolly at this time?

All right.

Well, anyone else for any of our other division leader department heads, employees?

Wonderful.

With that, I would entertain a motion to table at this time.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Carney.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Pemberton, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on, uh, the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 8:05 post-meridian.

Thank you.